What's your favourite Operating System?
- Thread starter stpvoice
- Start date
ah-blabla
New Member
- Messages
- 375
- Reaction score
- 7
- Points
- 0
BTW, there is a topic EXACTLY like this:
http://forums.x10hosting.com/crossfire/85567-operating-system-do-you-prefer.html
And BTW Linux isn't an OS, it's a kernel.
http://forums.x10hosting.com/crossfire/85567-operating-system-do-you-prefer.html
And BTW Linux isn't an OS, it's a kernel.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 5,987
- Reaction score
- 212
- Points
- 63
That topic was posted last year.
And yes, I know its a kernel, but it saves me naming every distro. It puts a general umbrella over them all.
steronius
Member
- Messages
- 195
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 18
I vote "YES"
I cannot vote for a single OS.
I like Linux due to the FREEWARE / OPEN SOURCE SPIRIT (Specifically Ubuntu due to ease of use, no adding to sudoers file and no appending /sbin/ to common utilities like ifconfig)
I like OSX due to stability and performance (BSD based) (Likely a hardware thing too)
I like windows due to most widely used, most freeware available, (of course i'm power-user / administrator).
I like FreeBSD due to closest to Unix and OSX (excluding gui)
That said,
I dislike Windows due to stability / performance issues.
I dislike Linux due to necessity to hand-role many configs / installs.
I dislike OSX due to limited numbers of freeware available.
So in the end, the answer is multiple machines, multiple OS's, multi-boots and Multiple VM's.
I cannot vote for a single OS.
I like Linux due to the FREEWARE / OPEN SOURCE SPIRIT (Specifically Ubuntu due to ease of use, no adding to sudoers file and no appending /sbin/ to common utilities like ifconfig)
I like OSX due to stability and performance (BSD based) (Likely a hardware thing too)
I like windows due to most widely used, most freeware available, (of course i'm power-user / administrator).
I like FreeBSD due to closest to Unix and OSX (excluding gui)
That said,
I dislike Windows due to stability / performance issues.
I dislike Linux due to necessity to hand-role many configs / installs.
I dislike OSX due to limited numbers of freeware available.
So in the end, the answer is multiple machines, multiple OS's, multi-boots and Multiple VM's.
ah-blabla
New Member
- Messages
- 375
- Reaction score
- 7
- Points
- 0
GNU/Linux is what the OS is called, since GNU provides the actual tools making the Kernel useful, i.e. producing an OS. Distros are just packaged versions of GNU (tools) and Linux (kernel).
That is also my favourite OS because of the choice you have to do everything the way you want... and the fact that you control your computer...
(I know I'm being pedantic... but, you can't call Linux an OS if it isn't one, just like I can't call an engine a car, or a head a human being.)
Last edited:
- Messages
- 5,987
- Reaction score
- 212
- Points
- 63
Thanks for everyone who gave a straigt answer, insted of criticising my options 
Personally, I find Linux nice, as you can pick a distro based on your needs.
On the other hand, I like windows because of its compatability and the fact that everyone knows it.
I dislike mac-no particular reason
Personally, I find Linux nice, as you can pick a distro based on your needs.
On the other hand, I like windows because of its compatability and the fact that everyone knows it.
I dislike mac-no particular reason
steronius
Member
- Messages
- 195
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 18
Thanks ....
I dislike mac-no particular reason
Because we were trained to dislike Macs. Almost everyone in the computer field disliked Macs in the past.
Now that OSX is based on BSD (Unix), there have been many "converts". Practically the whole IT staff are using Macs. I couldnt believe it myself. For my job I had to get a new (second) workstation and I had a choice. So I chose the Mac Pro just to see what the hype was. ...Intel Xeon Quad core 6GB ram and 2 NVidia cards to push 4 screens. I have NEVER regretted that decision -- it has enough power to run 3 Virtual Machines at once plus Folding@Home on all cores. Not too shabby.
But I could never just stop using Windows or Linux either!
Linkz0rs
Member
- Messages
- 247
- Reaction score
- 7
- Points
- 18
Neither... So I selected 'Other', which would bring my option to being 'Star-Blade', an OS me and my friends all worked on for the past 6 1/2 years...
I don't like Windows because it's too proprietary, too expensive, too vulnerable to hacking viruses and other malicious things.
Linux distributions are fine with me, since it works the way I want with just a bit of configuration, plus its free and much more stable.
Mac is ok, but not exactly what I look for in an OS. Mac's typically do have good hardware but are much too expensive.
Star-Blade on the other-hand is a made-from-scratch OS, not based off any other OS, 99% of the software that comes with the OS is made ourselves, only exception is Firefox, and Gimp. Plus I know it inside and out, works great, don't have to pay for it, never gave me any problems, plus it has high compatibility meaning it will work on nearly any system its installed on.
But lets not talk about this, since the topic isnt about Star-Blade, that would be getting off topic!!
I don't like Windows because it's too proprietary, too expensive, too vulnerable to hacking viruses and other malicious things.
Linux distributions are fine with me, since it works the way I want with just a bit of configuration, plus its free and much more stable.
Mac is ok, but not exactly what I look for in an OS. Mac's typically do have good hardware but are much too expensive.
Star-Blade on the other-hand is a made-from-scratch OS, not based off any other OS, 99% of the software that comes with the OS is made ourselves, only exception is Firefox, and Gimp. Plus I know it inside and out, works great, don't have to pay for it, never gave me any problems, plus it has high compatibility meaning it will work on nearly any system its installed on.
But lets not talk about this, since the topic isnt about Star-Blade, that would be getting off topic!!
Some people will always be critical. Linux is the common name for the OS, and a think that was what you were going for.
My preference was Windows, but only because I am running Windows 7. It is better than vista, which would've made me vote Linux.
My preference was Windows, but only because I am running Windows 7. It is better than vista, which would've made me vote Linux.
- Messages
- 5,987
- Reaction score
- 212
- Points
- 63
Yeah, thanks for the feedback. Do you find windows 7 way better than vista? What more does it have/do? And also, I did sway to linux for a while. I used just about every different distro of ubuntu, fedora and solaris. Vista's sluggishness did my head in.Some people will always be critical. Linux is the common name for the OS, and a think that was what you were going for.
My preference was Windows, but only because I am running Windows 7. It is better than vista, which would've made me vote Linux.
The UAC in Windows 7 is much improved, and width the Windows XP mode it now makes running my legacy applications a breeze. I also like the new taskbar, as I typically have a lot of windows open and it makes it easier to keep track of them.
Mr. DOS
Member
- Messages
- 230
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 18
I am really liking the improved window management in Windows 7. Drag a window's taskbar to the top of the screen or Winkey+Up to maximize it, to the left or right or Winkey+Left or Right to resize it to take up that half of the screen, or Winkey+Down to minimize it. It's great for dual monitors or high resolutions. Speaking of dual monitors, historically, if you wanted to move a maximized window from one monitor to another, you've had to unmaximize (OK, "restore") the window, then move it over, then maximize it again. Now you can just drag the title bar of a maximized window from one monitor to the next and it'll automatically maximize.
The new taskbar is pretty nice, although I have a few usability gripes with it. If an application has multiple windows open, the timer for opening the window list upon hovering over the taskbar item is way too long and results in a slower experience than the traditional taskbar. On the other hand, it can fit a whole lot more. The improved notification area is also nice - I can finally configure how I want individual status icons to be displayed.
The Start menu (sorry, Windows menu) is largely the same as Vista's, which was an improvement over XP's, which was in turn an improvement over the Windows 95-style Start menu of everything before it.
Some improvements have been made to Alt+Tab, namely, if you hit Alt+Tab and leave Alt held down to leave the window list open, you can now click on one of the windows to jump to it instead of having to Tab cycle through to it (handy when you have many windows open at once).
It just feels generally faster than Vista - they've tightened up UI timings and they also reworked the Aero backend so it takes less memory.
Overall, I like it well enough to have replaced XP on my workstation with it. I'm also running it on my gaming machine (which was built with the idea of running Windows 7) and my laptop (because certain things about Ubuntu were just ticking me off). However, I wouldn't say I liked it well enough to pay $100+ for the upgrade - $40 for students should be the regular price, and there should be no "Home" edition. As Jeff Atwood points out, lower pricing can actually cause a large enough increase in sales to result in more revenue, not just equal. Now if only the multimillion-dollar marketing monkeys at Microsoft (yeah, try saying that three times fast) could figure that out...
--- Mr. DOS
P.S. The funny thing? Gnome's had a significant portion of this stuff for years.
The new taskbar is pretty nice, although I have a few usability gripes with it. If an application has multiple windows open, the timer for opening the window list upon hovering over the taskbar item is way too long and results in a slower experience than the traditional taskbar. On the other hand, it can fit a whole lot more. The improved notification area is also nice - I can finally configure how I want individual status icons to be displayed.
The Start menu (sorry, Windows menu) is largely the same as Vista's, which was an improvement over XP's, which was in turn an improvement over the Windows 95-style Start menu of everything before it.
Some improvements have been made to Alt+Tab, namely, if you hit Alt+Tab and leave Alt held down to leave the window list open, you can now click on one of the windows to jump to it instead of having to Tab cycle through to it (handy when you have many windows open at once).
It just feels generally faster than Vista - they've tightened up UI timings and they also reworked the Aero backend so it takes less memory.
Overall, I like it well enough to have replaced XP on my workstation with it. I'm also running it on my gaming machine (which was built with the idea of running Windows 7) and my laptop (because certain things about Ubuntu were just ticking me off). However, I wouldn't say I liked it well enough to pay $100+ for the upgrade - $40 for students should be the regular price, and there should be no "Home" edition. As Jeff Atwood points out, lower pricing can actually cause a large enough increase in sales to result in more revenue, not just equal. Now if only the multimillion-dollar marketing monkeys at Microsoft (yeah, try saying that three times fast) could figure that out...
--- Mr. DOS
P.S. The funny thing? Gnome's had a significant portion of this stuff for years.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 5,987
- Reaction score
- 212
- Points
- 63
Thanks for the Mr. DOS, great detail. I'm a bit hesitant about windows 7, becuase of the mockery vista turned out to be. I think its safe to say its what vista should have been, but it was rushed out, and Microsoft paid the price. I did switch to Linux for a while, but I had compatability problems with my windows software, so now, as I type this, I'm using XP-everyone loves it (almost).
Have some rep for that
Have some rep for that
Mr. DOS
Member
- Messages
- 230
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 18
Thanks It'll be interesting to see how it turns out long-term. Visually, it's very similar to Vista, so people who held issue with the ludicrous amounts of shine in Vista will have the same problem with 7. I don't think we'll see it become another eight-year long-distance runner like XP, but it'll do OK.
Frankly, I think the "Vista mockery" thing is a little ridiculous; by the time Service Pack 1 came out, hardware support wasn't really an issue any more, at least not with new computers (although older computers - even ones that were new when Vista was - remain a problem), and it was fairly stable. It's still slow and it still has some usability issues, but its problems now are largely the public's perception.
--- Mr. DOS
It'll be interesting to see how it turns out long-term. Visually, it's very similar to Vista, so people who held issue with the ludicrous amounts of shine in Vista will have the same problem with 7. I don't think we'll see it become another eight-year long-distance runner like XP, but it'll do OK.Frankly, I think the "Vista mockery" thing is a little ridiculous; by the time Service Pack 1 came out, hardware support wasn't really an issue any more, at least not with new computers (although older computers - even ones that were new when Vista was - remain a problem), and it was fairly stable. It's still slow and it still has some usability issues, but its problems now are largely the public's perception.
--- Mr. DOS
palmettoexpress_ceo
New Member
- Messages
- 8
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
My favorite operating system platform would have to be windows, because it is the easiest to use. From the windows platform,below are my rankings for favoite operating system.
1) Windows XP
2) Windows Server 2008 Standard Edition/Enterprise Edition
3) Windows 7
4) Windows Vista
5) Windows 98SE
I also enjoy using some of the various flavors of Linux, like Ubuntu and Fedora.
1) Windows XP
2) Windows Server 2008 Standard Edition/Enterprise Edition
3) Windows 7
4) Windows Vista
5) Windows 98SE
I also enjoy using some of the various flavors of Linux, like Ubuntu and Fedora.
- Messages
- 764
- Reaction score
- 27
- Points
- 0
Don't get all misty eyed with widows compatability because it will bite you lol.
Vista drivers are not backwards compatible with XP
and the same will probably be true of Win7 and Vista.
So you are forced to upgrade your PC along with the Operating System when dealing with Micro$oft, as PC makers only write drivers and design thier kit to work with the latest O/S. If you buy a PC in say five years time then chances are it will never be able to run an old copy of vista even with a valid key..
Vista drivers are not backwards compatible with XP
and the same will probably be true of Win7 and Vista.
So you are forced to upgrade your PC along with the Operating System when dealing with Micro$oft, as PC makers only write drivers and design thier kit to work with the latest O/S. If you buy a PC in say five years time then chances are it will never be able to run an old copy of vista even with a valid key..